they will look at all those problems around the world, not only at the economic problems, and trust me, from what everybody is saying, the european issues not getting any better for a long time. and china, look at them today. they just announced an hour ago that they put another 40 some billion into their banks on top of the 40 some billion they put in there a week ago. so you can see what's going on here. and then put on top of that what's going on around the world. and i have a hunch that whoever is here is going to be okay for people to cooperate. >> otherwise you have the prospect of financial markets look at americans they we have been distracted by europe, but if you can't make the compromises needed to fix this one. >> the market has stayed up in 13, five, or something like that based on the believer going to fix. and if they lose that belief. >> let's talk about a couple

specifics that interest the business committee. energy reform clearly need to happen in america. it's so mired in politics. using some of the politics can be taken out of this? >> id. i think that energy security is so vital to not only quality of life but also our national security, that there will be some agreement moving forward. the keystone xl pipeline is a perfect example of politics getting in the way of sound energy policy. but there seems to be an emerging consensus that we can be north american energy independence within the next few years, as long as we do things right. now, that, the devil is in the detail there but making sure that you don't raise taxes on energy producers. because when you do that you raise taxes for all consumers. again from a manufacturing standpoint, we have a stake in this discussion because we use one-third of this nation's energy output. so every time energy costs

increase, the cost of manufacturing increases and adds to the 20% cost disadvantage i mentioned. the regulatory burdens are enormous for the energy industry, and hitting that in check is going to be vital in the next four years. >> that, would you take immigration reform for? >> i would be happy to take the rest of jay's observations about energy policy because for consumers, many of them, difference between whether they can go shopping and spend either mandatory or discretionary spending is the price of gasoline and other commodities but gasoline is the big one and they're certain segments of the retail industry in which you can draw a straight line and an inverse line between the price of fuel and sales that go on and the jobs that get created. so that's an important one. i think on immigration that's one that hasn't gotten a lot of discussion but really has to be addressed. i mentioned the mismatch we have in this country between the skills of the people that are coming out of school today and the jobs that are taken. there are 3 million jobs in this

country that are vacant that need to be filled by people that have mass and technology backgrounds and engineering backgrounds. and the students that come from around the world to our schools and learn those skills can go back and other countries and turn around and compete with our companies because we've educated them but they won't stay here because we won't let them. that's got to be addressed. >> the question is, you all agree, immigration is needed but will it have been? >> i think it will. >> it will. >> now, what it gets, something on the top, something on the bottom, but the bottom line we are getting closer to having to do a reasonable immigration bill. and i think it, whatever it is, will happen when, whenever win is, you know, short-term. >> and it's going to have -- clearly business cares a lot about the issue, but in order to get immigration reform through, we are going to have to take a very hard look and, frankly,

there's going to have to be a lot of concessions on the side of -- [inaudible] >> i'm not. i'm saying we need it all. and republicans i think we'll have to back off that cliff. >> everybody has got for a but has to do what they promised people that they would do. you have got plenty of votes are immigration reform. they all promise to. what we have to do is write the bill that caches all those promises. i think just the height of governmental negligence to have our top schools educating foreign students in requiring them to leave, no place should do that. and it is part of an economic strategy for growth in the future. you want to be a magnet for the best talent in the world, and we got to make no bones about it, we're going to compete for the best talent because we're the best environment for the talent spent before we go to questions, jay, then i want to talk about campaign financing.

>> so you're looking at california right now, and that massive increase in the cost of gasoline, when matt said, when consumers are paying for gasoline they are not able to purchase their basic commodities every day. so what's happening? governor brown is proposing a relaxation of regulations that impact the energy industry. that is clearly a concession that regulation drives the cost of energy. we've got to have that same focus and discussion here in washington. because what's happening in california can happen all across this country. >> hawaii, i heard -- >> when we do the big deal everybody thinks we have to do entitlements and defends on one side and taxes on the other. if you have a school pashtuns do with two legs he usually falls over. if we look at what the canadians did with their cash cow, we have more cash cow in energy than any

of them. and we can do spending. we can do taxes, and we can to energy which is our cash cow if we go to and you can make a real deal. and i -- >> tom, you think this can happen if the make of government on november 7 is the same as it is today? >> no. i think will happen for another reason. i think first of all when people figure out there's a big chunk of change, and second of all when you have the debate between the people trying to protect entitlement, and the people trying to kill energy, who are you betting on? >> in california they're saying just allow the winter fuel blend is not early is going to save, make as much as 50 cents a gallon, they've been paying over $5 a gallon in california, and california has created -- [inaudible] >> california is america if we don't change.

that's a scary thought. you can see the future, just look to california. it should scare everybody in america. no one would want to go the. part of the answer of california is to stop trying to be the federal government. they can save a lot of money if they pull back from the own agencies and own regulations. but i do think we have this opportunity, to tom's point on this leg of the school got it all fits on a growth like if you will. because i think that we would say, certain is what happened that is happening at the state level, governor kasich is looking at this, governor daniels did some of this, other governors are. that you take a energy resource and so now i can start fixing some of those infrastructure needs that have been piling up if we start doing that, we are going to be short on labor in this country. we will need to retrain those people that are trained, art skills. the potential is enormous if there's anything in any leadership. >> okay, we're going to take question in just a minute.

before that i want to ask you a question about campaign finance and the super pacs going into -- i don't know what you called small super pacs going into the congressional races. all of you presumably involved in congressional races? >> we are switching. we don't have a political -- spirit what is the role, tom, forgive business and government and election campaigns? >> the major effort has been going on for some time to come in various ways, to force business to back away from participating in both the election process and the process of governance. which loses sight of the fact that the constitution fundamentally guarantees us the right to petition the government, and the supreme court continues to support that right. and why do people want us not to do it?

because for years, you know, people in business were reticent to, and then we started getting organized and now are all saying wait a minute, we didn't invite him to this party. we like our deal where we just make our arrangements and when our elections. well, good luck. it ain't happening. and american businesses are beginning to see that if they don't play any game, somebody else is going to steal their lunch. >> and that's a good think it is a good thing that american businesses are getting involved. i said earlier we do not have a clinical action committee at the nam but we are forming one. we had a debate for 40 years, and manufactures are very concerned about the future of the country and they believed that they need to have a voice, again all those issues we've already talked about, taxes, regulation and energy. the only way to do that is to get into the game and pointed to the american people what needs to be fixed in order for us to invest in the united states and create jobs. >> we've got some good role models even though this

roundtable -- business roundtable doesn't get involved and we don't even great legislators. my expense as a governor is a competitive state, our best teachers on political activist with the labor unions, and then later on george soros. he taught every wealthy individual american you can't afford to sit on the sidelines. and so i say go for it. >> we don't do endorsements either. we have a pack. we're very involved, and last week we launch a retail meets the vote campaign and will probably connect wit with a quar of a million retailers and millions of their employees. not endorsing, not to do that would give them voter guide, encouraging them to be in full. if we're going to address any of the issues, maybe we can get something done everything looks exactly the same. but there's a sense of people of a better understanding of our positions there's a greater likelihood we will get some action on them and that's why we've engaged our membership. >> let's go to questions from the audience. don't feel shy. i'm not a scary schoolteacher,

the regime. if you begin your name and your affiliation that would be wonderful. and there are microphones roving. yes, the lady with the red jacket. >> good morning. my name is penny pompeii, and i'm the ceo of women construction owners and executives, a trade association here in alexandria. and my question is, there's been a lot of discussion about the size of government and how do we get the money that we need? do we raise taxes? if we lower taxes do we get more revenue? what about cutting the size of government? it's just too big. in any downturn all of the businesses in this country cut staff, cut expenses. the government hasn't done the. they have just increased their expenses. >> jay? >> i think you have to look at the spending side of the ledger. in fact, the president said in the debate we need to look at medicaid because as he said it's the biggest driver of debt right

now in our country. so there has to be, there has to be a focus and if entitlements are going to have to have a serious look. reform is going to be necessary in order to change the way we are spending money, if we want to continue to ensure that those who need to benefit do benefit in the future. but everything can be examined. every business in this country, every single day examines what they are spending money on, how they're spending the money, making sure that their processes in manufacturing are lean, mean that there is no waste. government can do the same. i know that states do that all the time. john engler is a great example as a former governor. i worked for former governor. states oftentimes lead away on fiscal responsibility. >> here's one thing that clearly the role of government is one of the big issues in this campaign with the believe government is an enabler or whether you believe government is a hindrance. but it seems to me people talk

about cutting spending. then, of course, when it comes to their actual program, they don't want to cut. we had even the example of governor romney recently suggesting that if we went off the fiscal cliff and we had the spending cuts in defen it was going to kill jobs in virginia. virginia. i mean, you know. it was a program we didn't cut. >> that's we need leadership from the top as governor in gaza. and i will point back into the governors. successful governors do two things really well. they provide leadership and they propose bold initiatives to their legislatures, and they also have a strategy or a blueprint, if you will, for economic growth in their states for the future. those are the successful governors. we need the same type of leadership at the white house. >> no president has had real organization authority since ronald reagan. i would think that needs to come back. i would go so far as to put some back of authority that was lost

after the nixon era. but congress has got to help. some committees in congress are not very good managers of departments is got to be an accommodation here, but you cannot leave the size and the structure of the government we've got in place. this big government that functions in the 19th century organization model, and by the availability of 21st century technology, everybody is automating everything, and it's very painful, very slow. you look at the demographics of the federal workforce. they are aging. attrition would take care a lot of this is a good be accompanied by rigorous management. i mean, president obama prior to becoming president, largest management he had ostensibly the senate office. that's not exactly, you know, great training to run one of the largest enterprises known to m man. [inaudible] >> well, i'm very partial of.

[laughter] >> there's a lot of ways -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> next question. the gentleman in the middle with a red tie. do you have a microphone? hold on a second. let's get a microphone to you, thank you. >> i'm jim talent with northstar policy, consulting and lobbying. we've talked about energy. i think we have enormous potential in the united states to devote our energy resources. it seems to me a lot of it is communications challenged. i mean, when you have a lisa doesn't mean you're going to find before. we talk about anwr for example, having enormous reserves but it takes a long time to actually find energy and develop it. is very expensive. how do we better communicate that to the average citizen in just its? i think that will be the key in order for us to have a sound energy policy and develop our resources that could benefit really all americans. >> well, you know, we, the

chamber is very active in politics but we don't to presidential politics. but i am going to refer to something that candidate romney said the other day about energy. and he said if you spend all your time and energy beating up on the existing energy system, which does a hell of a job, about $2 trillion worth of deductions, while putting 90 -- $2 billion, putting $90 billion in something else. i mean, the fundamental reality here is we know we have a lot of this energy. we do it right, remember, the country owns 68% of the land, we do it right, we will hire people, they will pay taxes. the companies will pay taxes. we will pay royalties. yes, it will take time, but we are talking about a 10 year deal

here on spending and taxes eric and ought to be on energy. and beating up what works is not what we're going to have to do. we're going to have to double down on what will work. >> the explosion is energy availability, and no one, proven energy resources in this country, the drilling and an infringement on private land. and tom is right but if you start to ring the federal land that can be available here, and others literally millions of acres of wilderness lands still available to the wilderness lands want to open up many other millions of acres for exploration, to meet the urgent needs of the country. it's a win-win situation, and i think we never really came back, came back very, very slow after the gulf. we've had a slow down on federal land. all it really takes is the right attitude and let's get this done. and, of course, it's got to be done and it will be in an environmentally appropriate fashion.

we are the best in the world at doing exploration in environmentally sensitive areas without damage. >> next question. >> while we're waiting, let me just jump in on the energy discussion again, because we can't come and tom refer to this, you can have a serious discussion about, about expanding energy supplies and making it affordable and reliable by demonizing the success. you can't call out a specific company in a major forum for their own success. and as governor engler said, we have a bounty of energy resources here that we didn't even know about five, sections ago. we're talking about shale natural gas of course. and while that will provide us for its estimate of 40-50 years of unfettered supply, we really have an obligation to go beyond that. instead of demonizing success today, instead of characterizing

energy companies as anything other than what they are, which is providing an economic boost to those countries, we ought to be looking at an all of the above approach. all the above means not on fossil fuels which are absolutely essential to our ability to compete success as a nation, but alternatives, nuclear. nobody talks on nuclear anymore, and getting all those things right, having a strategy in place which i would argue would be a nice thing for the department of energy to do, for 40 or 50 years into the future. we haven't seen that in this country. >> we also have the greatest conservationist in the energy assembled because the business community has led the way on energy conservation. >> but i think that's the communication side. that's perhaps what the public is not so will well aware of, and the question was how do we do better communication skills. >> i think you higher john sturm i think. >> i have one other question for all of you.

and please feel free with the question. you have a great and others to take advantage of them. as i go around the country the other thing i hear, and mostly from individuals, is one of the problems they're having taken an housing market is access to credit, that it's incredibly hard and individuals and off so for small businesses to get credit. what are the solutions to that? >> well, i don't think, there's a question that the ease of access to credit five years ago, the pendulum probably swung too far one way but clear for now it has swung too far back the other way. and consumers, businesses on the access to credit to grow their business. so i think we have to be more responsible conversation with the banks, with lenders about what kind of loans they are making. but i think you have to appreciate that the banks and financial institutions are in a tough place. because i'm the one and give consumers and businesses thing we need more credit. and on the other hand you've got policymakers and regulators

saying don't make any bad loans, shareholders, too. so i think they need clarity just like everyone else does. if there were signs of clear growth growing forward, i think most of the financial institute would say listen, we would go ahead and we would be making more laws, we would be investing more on behalf of the people we represent. but we are not going to make loans -- we will see on the cpb there was a credit card act of 2009 there was a provision, it is an example of the pendulum swing too far one way, that if you were, it was pretty specific, if you were a stay-at-home mom, not a number of a household, so you could be married, have a full-time companion, if that other person work and used it on, you couldn't get access to credit. because you didn't have a job to stay home. now, the cfpb didn't fix it. of everyone else feels about the cpb in terms of the kind thing system are not doing but that's one thing i think they did get

right. but that's just one small example of a credit issue. >> look, dodd-frank was written in anger. it was. people are angry and they're trying to cover up their own involvement in this deal. the second thing about that, it had 250 some required new regulations, and 150 some suggested new regulations. >> many of which have become in place yet. >> we are still getting warmed up. if you're running a bank, there are now five regulators, all different, and one bunch comes in and says from the treasure, you better linda someone. and the other guys come in from the bank examiners and they say, well you get the rest of the money back the loans, we're going to lock in the fall because we are not it to anybody. i mean, you wouldn't run, want to run a bank today, a big bang, a small bank, any kind of bank. and we are only getting it started. we have more regulations to

write. we have more restrictions to build. we have more regulators to higher, and you wonder why companies are sitting on two and a half trillion dollars worth of money? >> we have time for one last question from the audience. yes, the lady in a gray jacket. >> my name is -- i work with leading authorities. i think that america can most americans could agree on two things if you look at the public opinion polls, and one is that would have to incentivize business. we have to do that to get jobs created and get her business back in order. and the other is that most americans think that it would be okay to raise taxes on the wealthy 1%. why are those mutually exclusive? why do we often have to have that discussion where we have two lower taxes on personal income but not lower taxes on business? i think we need to have it kind of both ways. >> i'm going to jump in.

tom, i'm going to give this to you. and has to be fairly brief. >> is very simple. history shows when you raise taxes on the 1% of the people that pay 41, 42% of the taxes, you will collect less money. probably not a very good idea. but when we get finished we will debate that issue. the big fundamental issue is what are we doing on taxes on the constructive part of the economy, and we have to adjust them. >> okay. >> go back to 90, george bush entered into a deal that was supposed to be balanced and the trade off was reduced spending, higher taxes. the higher taxes for sure. this penny, that was to come later. we are still waiting. and i think, as thompson earlier, the negotiations, there's a lot of pieces to it. everything will end up being on the table, but there's no question that you've got to curb

long-term medicare, entitlement costs as sort of a number one spending program that's in the federal government. and that's going to have to be looked at through health care reform and a whole bunch of other things that are complex. but you can't do one without doing what i would argue everything. >> okay. before we go, very pretty i would ask each of you with your optimistic or pessimistic, the things you think need to be done to restore business competitiveness can be done over the course of next four years, whoever wins the election on november 6. governor. >> i'm highly optimistic. i'm 100% certain they can all be done. the question you're asking will they? i think there's going to be enormous pressure from the business committed to get off. this is an opportunity, and really 2013 in many ways could determine i think the first half of the 21st century in terms of economic growth and opportunity in this country, this could be a very good time

for america, if we make decisions. if we doddle come if we miss opportunities, we are really doing our children to a less than stellar future. i think we can win the argument. >> tom donohue. >> obviously i'm optimistic. >> always. >> i believe that the circumstances in america and around the world are such that they create an environment where whoever is in authority and empower would have to act or pay the price. >> i'm very optimistic because i think the american people aren't going to settle for anything less than success, and they're going to help drive this debate and does business leaders, our job is to ensure that the business community is involved and that the employees of our members are involved in the discussion. and when they are the politicians will eventually do the right thing. >> do you think american politicians are going to do what's needed? >> you're not going to find any

pessimist up here, we wouldn't do what we did for a living. i think we're all optimistic. as we discussed before everyone of the problems we face is solvable, and i think as churchill famously observed americans can always be counted on to do the right thing after they've exhausted every other possibility last night so it may be that we will live up to the. and we will get it done. >> absolutely the right way to end. you can never go wrong in the on churchill. thank you very much for joining me up here. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all for joining us for conversations, and a big thank you to katty kay, who is a keen observer on washington politics and the economy as well as a great moderator. thank you very much. and thank you also to our panel is, john engler, tom donohue, jay timmons and matt shay. we really appreciate you all being here. i'd like to also again thank our

sponsors, bloomberg government, the convention in visitors bureau, the political report, and a reminder that if you enjoyed today's programs we do these four associations and state of the industry conferences. finally, a reminder, in four weeks of the election day will be held, and a couple days after we're going to have a major event with charlie cook and stu rothenberg at the chamber on the morning of november 8. and we hope you'll marker calendars and join us. thanks very much and have a great day. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> a quick reminded that if you missed any of this discussion is available on our website. go to c-span.org and look in the video library. we do have more live events today on the c-span networks. coming up in about half an hour at 10 eastern its new democratic senator chuck schumer. he will talk about tax policy including how a lame duck congress will deal with expiring tax cuts. again it will be on c-span. and we have more campaign 2012 coverage coming up later this afternoon. will bring you a debate between candidates to be west virginia's next governor.

you can see that live starting at 7 p.m. eastern. that will also be on c-span. >> look at what president obama did on the budget, nothing except a borrow and spend. and as a result of the president's abdication of leadership, as a result of seeing the most predictable economic crisis in our countries history and not fixing it, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a $4 trillion debt reduction plan over the next 10 years, 4 trillion. we have already passed 1 trillion of it. ladies and gentlemen, these guys vote against everything. no, no, i really many. not want to say it like a plan, i get that. what's your plan? >> thursday, paul ryan and joe biden will face off in their only to paid, abc news martha

bad is moderates from dental kentucky, and you can watch and engage in c-span with her live debate preview start at 7 p.m. eastern followed by the debate at nine and your reaction, calls, e-mails and tweets at 10:30 p.m. spent c-span campaign 2012 debate on the website provides live and on-demand coverage of all the presidential and vice presidential debates and it's the only place where you will see our live coverage of behind the scenes sites and sounds before and after the debates. aside as each debate question available as a separate clip where you can search and watch my topic. watch your creative clips as well and read streaming tweets from political reporters and other viewer reactions at c-span.org/debates. >> up next to find of a new

public opinion poll in american attitudes toward arabs and muslims. this was conducted following recent violent protests in the arab world that erupted in response to a film denigrating islam. the "al arabiya news" channel d.c. bureau chief as a part of this 90 minute event hosted by the brookings institution. >> ladies and gentlemen, good morning. thank you so much for coming out on a somewhat dreary fall morning, and on columbus day, too. for an event that in many ways is more efficiently time today than it was when we planted, because presidential candidate governor mitt romney is getting a major foreign policy address later today, just to the south of us, addressing many of the middle east policy question that we will be discussing over the course of the day. and i hope that we will be able to take a look at what the public opinion data may reveal

about the potential popularity of the positions governor romney is putting forth. but let me start by saying the arab awakening in many ways seems to put forward a coherent narrative to international observers and particularly to the american public in some ways very quickly the first few months of peaceful protesters facing off against the police force is a brutal dictatorships, and gateway to windows dictators did, in fact, embark on a violent response, and much more mixed picture of violent uprisings in libya and elsewhere, and now what looks like an increasingly entrenched civil war, perhaps emerging as a sectarian war in syria.

and then finally last month with the eruption of demonstrations in tunis, cairo, and elsewhere not only in the middle east but across the muslim world in protest of this now infamous youtube video. the american public began to see a very confusing portrait of the changes that are taking place in the arab world and what they mean. shibley telhami, our nonresident senior fellow, and the anwar sadat professor at the university of maryland, together with his colleague at the program on international policy attitudes, and i like to recognize steve who is with us today, his research partner in this effort, decided that they wanted after the embassy attacks to dig in to where the american public is on these questions today, how they are struggling to interpret events in the

middle east. in light of the attacks but beyond the embassy attacks themselves. and so he will be providing us today with an overview of the results of their work, a new poll that was conducted jus jusa week and a half ago, less. so extremely fresh outlook opinion data. we are going to take that data and analysis and add to it some contextual analysis from two very seasoned observers, william galston, the ezra k. zilkha chair and governance studies here at the brookings institution, a seasoned observer of american politics, and culture, and also a thoughtful skull on issues of religion and culture and politics, and a seasoned observer of arab politics and with these two

gentlemen as our assistance today, we will be able to take a broader look at how the arab world are looking at the united states and the u.s. public is looking at the arab world as the arab awakening continues to create a very uncertain and very fast changing environment. so i'm grateful to all of you for coming. i look forward to our discussion. and at this point i'd like to invite shibley telhami up to the podium to present. >> thanks a lot, tammy. it's only good to be here. i'm going to just present, not the whole thing by some of the findings so we can get on with the conversation, i will present the highlights but i just want to give you a bit of a picture about this particular poll. it was conducted by knowledge

networks, 700, sample, 737, that is designed to be national representative. it's an internet panel. the methodologies described in the information that will put out is also available online. i also want to say that it's really my pleasure and honor to ponder through this program at the university of maryland, program for policy and international policy attitudes and particularly my colleague, steve, who by the way has a recent book published by brookings about feeling betrayed about muslim attitudes. an excellent book that a recommend. and also the fact that we did the september 27 to october 2 at we didn't get the results into wednesday. i'm really grateful for the, particularly of the staff at ramsey, evan lewis and abe who put a lot into it to get it out.

very quickly and a lot of time into it. so the idea was to measure it in a timely fashion to see out the american public is reacting to these demonstrations in the arab world, but take the leap to attacks on the attacks on embassies. and look at these results and compare them with prior polls we've done. were done a number of polls related to this, including in the spring of 2012, and we've done one in august 2011. and there was also a chicago council poll that steve did in june 2012. 's web a little bit of a sense of comparison. so clued one of the things we're interested in finding out is how the public is internalizing what seem to be sweeping demonstrations initially, it looked like they had used support and they were very violent, serving in libya and egypt in august a lot of commentary with those people. so we can't have an idea of what the american people -- do they

see this as, do they see the violent attacks take against the embassies to be supported by majorities of arabs and muslims, or by minorities? and that was really the first question that we had about that attacks in libya and in egypt. so thinking about that attacks in egypt and libya for each country would you say the violent attacks were only supported by extremist minorities or they were supported by majorities of the population? both egypt and libya. you can see he really large majorities, 63% on egypt, 61 on libya coming believe that these violent attacks were only supported by extremist minorities. so that that's kind of interesting because it was hard to know how the public is internalizing these events. it looks like they are blaming him primarily on extremist minorities. on the other hand when you ask

them about their impression about whether the governments of egypt and libya try to protect american diplomats and their staff, look at this. majorities said they did not. certainly larger majorities in libya, 63%, 53% in egypt and a little more divided in egypt, but still pretty much that's the perception. is it your impression of the government has criticized that attack, again to get a sense of we know that the governments criticized the attacks as a matter-of-fact of course, but the question what is the public here seen when they are feeling the reports, and much more divided. more people say yes, identical in egypt and libya. 47 say yes, criticized the attacks. 42% so now my. by the way the margin of error is four points, plus or minus four-6% it is a your impression the government has tried to

find, arrest the perpetrators? and again you see that the majority say they did not. so the impression on the one hand and they think these attacks were only supported by minority spent on the other hand they think the governments i guess they are not doing enough. now one of the issues of course is -- this up in something that was put on hold throughout these attacks. we wanted to find out whether the american public shifted its views on aid to egypt, and was actually presented them with for kind of statements to see which one they support more, two in favor, to a against a. and you can see we started with a statement about ongoing negotiations foreign aid to egypt. and then we asked one statement is, the u.s. should continue to provide aid to egypt because it helps egypt's emerging democracy

as it goes through a transition. and you find that convincing or and convincing. and you can see that over all 61% find this argument unconvincing. now yes, there is a significance partisan divide on this. you can see that 50% of democrats find it convincing, whereas only 20% of republicans and 29% of independents find it convincing. second argument in favor of aid, the u.s. should continue to provide it because it helps provide stability and it's a continuing for the u.s. to influence events. again, when you look at it overall, 57% find this argument unconvincing. again there is more democrats find it convincing but overall it's still still the same trend. when you go into the opposite argument, the u.s. should stop giving aid to the egyptian government because it has been

slow to criticize and has failed to effective and confront those who would attack an embassy in cairo, then you can find, you know, 64% find this convincing. and majorities of every democrats, republicans and independents find this convincing. that's pretty interesting. the second argument is essentially tied to the hard times, given the difficult economic times the u.s. is going through. it is unwise for the u.s. to give large amounts of aid to egypt. and so we tested that, and you can see that 74% find his argument convincing, and again, while it is true that more republicans support it, it's still pretty much supported across the board. now, so in the end, after we go through these scenarios, then we ask, so now, do you think the u.s. foreign aid to egypt should

be increased, kept at the same level, decrease, or stop altogether? and you can see actually it's a mixed picture because what you find is that essentially 42% say it should be decreased. and, but only 29% should be stopped altogether. and you can see that there's still a divide, you know, certainly across partisan lines, but the middle category is still very strong across the board, where people are prepared to stop it altogether, not surprisingly. i just want to compare that with a poll that was done with, for the council, for the chicago council on global affairs in june 2012. ..

>> now, we put turkey in there also as a kind of way of comparing to see whether there was also a shift with turkey where there were no attacks, and you can see that the views of libya are overwhelmingly negative. and by the way, we don't have a comparison point for libya. we haven't asked questions about libya in the past, so we really don't know whether this has always been the case or not. my suspicion, yes.

but that's what it is. in the case of egypt, it's certainly divided, but more people are unfavorable. and you can see over time there has been something of a shift. for example, right after the revolution in april 2011 we did what i call, you know, in light of the tahrir square metaphor where americans were, essentially, taken positively by the tahrir square issue that you have 60% say they had favorable views of egypt. that already declined in august, by august 2011 to 40%. there is not much of a shift since 2011, actually. for over a year it's roughly the same, particularly if you take the margin of error into account. so it doesn't appear that this particular episode is necessarily responsible for views of egypt. um, america's role in the middle east. in light of recent events in the

middle east and thinking about broad interests in the region, do you think the u.s. should maintain its current level of diplomatic level or decrease its diplomatic involvement. and here, you know, you have, you have a third of the american public wants to see diplomatic involvement decrease, but early a plurality, 46%, think it should be maintained at the same level, and 14% say it should be increased. um, now what about democratization? i mean, part of the -- over the past couple years we've been asking questions to see whether the american public watching these events in the middle east, the transformations, um, actually supports democratization even if the outcome isn't exactly what they like as, for example, a winning of islamists. so we were interested to see if particularly the events of the past few weeks shifted that in any shape or form.

meaning that they still support a country becoming more mocratic even if a country is going to become, likely become more opposed to u.s. policies. and surprisingly, to me a surprise still, i think, that you have 50% of american public say yes. this norm of supporting democracy appears to be strong even under circumstances where it could lead to outcomes that are o 30ezed to the u.s. 42% disagree. b obviously, it's a divided country in that regard but, certainly, more people support that notion. do you think the popular uprising in the arab world are more about ordinary people seeking freedom and dems accuracy, more about islamist groups seeking power or both equally? we asked that early on because, as you know, the debate has always been in this country about sort of the nature of the arab spring. and, um, we asked that from, you know, the first poll we did on the arab uprisings in april

2011, and you can see from here that, you know, um, in april 2011 45% say it was more about ordinary people seeking democracy, only 15% saying it's about, mostly about islamist groups seeking power and 37% said both equally. by august 2011 that had declined where you can see that it's still, you know, more people say it's ordinary, it's about ordinary people than about islamist group. now you can see it's a big shift. now, i have to say a little bit of a cautionary note here. um, you know, we have to use the same exact language referring to the arab uprisings instead of the arab spring in order the get a trend line. we had to repeat the question exactly the way we asked it in prior years to have a sense. but my own sense, and we discussed this early whether we

should even in this case change the wording to arab spring, part of the problem in this particular poll is that we're talking about other uprisings, demonstrations that they were talking about in the prior two weeks. and some people may confuse the term uprising with demonstrations than with the arab spring broadly. so i wouldn't overinterpret this one. i think there is a trend that is, you know, declined. no question, you can see it from april to august. this particular finding, i think, this particular poll for the reasons that i mentioned, i think, has to be taken with a note of caution. views of arabs and muslims broadly. we started asking questions about whether, how the american public sees, quote, the arab people, the muslim people particularly in light of the uprisings, and we, um, let me just, actually, start with the question about the clash of civilization. whether the tensions between

islam and the west, whether they think they arise more from differences of religion and culture or from conflict about political power and interest. and we had questions, we have asked this before as you can see from the trend line. and by and large it looks like, um, it's pretty consistent. more people think this is about a conflict about political power and interest than differences of religion and culture. while there's a decline a little bit from august to october -- from august 2011 to october 2012, you can see, um, you know, in between there was the bbc poll if june 2006 -- in june 2006 where, you know, the numbers were the same. so this doesn't appear to be much afacted by recent -- affected by recent events, actually. maybe there's a trend here to be seen, but it doesn't appear to be affected much. now, if you look at the division of republicans, democrats on

this, democrats are certainly more likely to say this is a mostly a conflict about political power and interest than republicans. republicans are more likely to say it's about differences of religion and culture. a view of the arab people generally, um, you can see again, you know, there is a slight trend of, you know, declining favorable views of the arabs from april 2011 when it was 56% to 49%. but, again, if you take the margin of error into account and particularly compare it to a year ago in august 2011, there's not really a huge shift here in views of arabs broadly. and they're still slightly more favorable than unfavorable. and that seems to be the case, also, with reference to the muslim people. we have 48% favorable, 48% unfavorable. again, in comparison to august

2011, it's not a huge shift at all. um, we asked two policy questions in addition, one pertaining to iran, one pertaining to syria, and i just want to report those very quickly before we move to the conversation. um, one question we asked in the last two polls that we've done is whether they believed an israeli strike on iran would delay iran's nuclear program by 1-2 years, 3-5 years, more than 5 years or accelerate iran's program. and what we found is really there's hardly any change at all from march 2012. it's almost identical results. what's noteworthy here is, obviously, most people don't think it's going to delay iran's nuclear program by more than five years. and even when you look at it, more people think it accelerates

iran's nuclear program than think it would delay it by more than five years, 22% to 15%. but, again, there's no change on this issue. what is likely effect of israeli strike on the prices of oil? 86% say it would, quote, drastically increase. the term "drastically" was actually built into the question. what would be the outcome on u.s., you know, for u.s. bases and u.s. involvement in the war, you can see that, um, 70% think that iran would attack u.s. bases and probably u.s. would get involved in the war. huge numbers. now, what if israel were to attack iran, do you think, um, the u.s.' military and strategic position in the middle east would be better, worse or about the same, 55% say worse, 32% say about the same and 8% say better. so bottom line, now, do you

think that the u.s. should discourage israel from attacking iran's nuclear program, take a neutral stance or encourage israel to attack iran's nuclear program. i have to say that these scenarios that we measured before we gave them these choices for speed, i'm not going through that. just to give you the bottom line on this. and the bottom line is that, um, you know, there's some change from march 2012 but not a lot. that, um, you have 53% say the u.s. should take a neutral stand, 29% say discourage. this, you know, really kind of you can see it across republican/democrat, that middle category, neutral stance actually holding for democrats, republicans and independents equally. final question before we sit for the conversation is on the

syrian conflict. um, we asked, actually, i'm going to summarize it. we asked really these four questions separately which is whether they support each one of these things; increasing economic and diplomatic sanctions on syria, enforcing a no-fly zone over syria, sending arms and supplies to anti-government groups, bombing syrian air defense or sending troops into syria. so we asked them about each one of these, and let me give you the summary with just a very quick comment. you can see that 60% support increasing diplomatic sanctions on syria, but what's interesting is that 59% support a no-fly zone over syria as well. now, this is interesting because we can have a conversation about what that means, what the public thinks because you can see from the three categories below that it's only 22% support arming the

syrian rebels. and i should say on that one there was a poll that was done also in june asking the same questions. by and large, the results of this poll were pretty much the same on all these with the exception that in between there was also a cnn poll conducted in august which showed a more divided american public on the issue of arming the rebels. and so in some sense that could be changed from august. you can see that only 22% support arming the rebels, 21% support bombing syrian air defenses, and 13% support sending troops into syria. there seems to be a contradiction of sorts between the opposition to bombing syrian air defenses and, you know, enforcing a no of fly zone. -- no-fly zone. it's worth discussing. thank you very much.

[applause] >> well, while everyone is getting settled there, let me thank you, innly, for -- shibly, for a swift overview of what are some truly fascinating results, and there's one slide that i believe was in the packet handed out but that shibley wasn't able to go through. support for a no-fly zone, unlike a lot of the other options, varies quite strongly between republicans and democrats on the one hand who by and large favor a no of fly zone -- no-fly zone and independents on the other hand who, by and large, do not support the u.s. enforcement of

a to-fly zone -- no-fly zone. and it's an interesting divide between partisans and independents on this question at a moment in our presidential campaign when both candidates are focused squarely on grabbing the independents. and yet both candidates are struggling to put forward a vision for the united states in the world that is active, that is engaged, and both of them are struggling with the question of how to respond to this worsening crisis in syria. so with that as a bit of background, bill, let me start with you, perhaps. um, that finding about independents is notable. it's also notable in this poll that the american public continues to be skeptical about foreign aid in general and about aid as a way of advancing american interests. given this sort of reticence, given the way the poll sort of

reveals the war weariness of the american public, how can romney or obama persuade the u.s. public that they need to support a vision of leadership? what does this poll tell us about how americans are struggling with the balance between leadership both unilateralism, intervention, nonintervention as they continue to feel that priorities are here at homesome. >> well, that's exactly the right question, tammy, because i think struggling with ambivalence, tension, even contradiction is the heart of the matter. and let me try to unpack that. i'm going to offer four broad generalizations about the state of american public opinion on these questions in general, and then i will end where shibley ended, with some brief comments on the syrian issue. first, let me just make a technical polling note. and that is that this is a

survey of adults. it's not a survey of registered voters, let alone likely voters. and so there are some, there are some differences as you impose increasingly demanding screens on adults. and these, these results will probably pick up more young people, more people who are more weakly connected to the political system. and in this election year, i think that difference between adults and actual voters may turn out to be meaningful. okay. now on to the main event. first of all, how would i characterize overall public reaction to the arab spring and its aftermath as revealed in this survey? i would say that people turn out to be reasonably well informed on the basics. some would say surprisingly well informed. their response overall,

moderate-nuanced, clearly influenced by domestic economic conditions. there is, indeed, as tammy's question suggested, a palpable weariness with the costs of engagement. in the middle east. but not to the extent of wanting to disengage altogether. nonetheless, you know, from this survey and from other surveys i think one can reach the conclusion that the theme that it's time for some nation building here at home is, has more than a little resonance with the american people. secondly, and this also, i think, responds to tammy's question, americans are deeply ambivalent about these events. and let me try to characterize that ambivalence as simply as possible. americans simultaneously like democracy, and they like to be liked. and the arab spring at least in

the short term is forcing them to come to grips with the fact that there may be some tension or even contradiction between those two primal american desires. the arab spring is forcing them to choose at least in the short term, because it is overwhelmingly likely -- we've already seen this -- that democratic governments will amplify voices that are skeptical about american foreign policy in the region and perhaps even skeptical about american culture and american political arrangements. it will give voice to outlooks that clash with ours. example, free speech, authoritatively stated by egypt's new president, mr. morsi, in his address at the united nations. you know, there is, i would say in the face of this ambivalence, a narrow support for democratization, 50-42 is not overwhelming.

and there is obviously a response to cognitive dissonance on this subject, as shibley pointed out. the percentage of americans thinking that the arab spring is more about freedom and democracy than islamist groups struggling for political power has declined by two-thirds in the past 16 months. that is, it is a significant. generalization number three, and shibley hinted at this, but given my own study of american politics, i wanted to underscore it. this survey shows signs -- and i would have been amazed if it didn't -- of acute partisan polarization on the basics of american policy. foreign policy. if american politics ever stopped at the water's edge, it no longer does. and let me just give you a few examples from the survey. because of muslim intolerance, violent clashes with the west are inevitable, proposition endorsed by 60% of republicans but only 30 percent of

democrats. the clash of civilizations as the prism through which to see vents in this region, republicans endorse it by 56%, only 36% of democrats agree. uprisings in the arab world are more about islamist groups seeking political power. republicans 55, democrats 30. and this even extends to the way people see facts. the egyptian government tried to protect americans, 54% of democrats think that the egyptian government did try to do that, only 25% of republicans. egyptian government, the egyptian government criticized the attacks. 65% of democrats think the egyptian government did that, but only 36% of republicans. and i could go through the rest of the survey and illustrate these partisan, partisan fissures. and so, you know, the proposition that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts, well, you know, how 20th century that proposition seems.

[laughter] you know, fourth generalization which starts to broaden out, i read this survey as revealing a shaky foundation at best for a strong relationship between the united states on the one hand and the arab and muslim world on the other. american public opinion is divided down the world, down the middle on both arabs and muslims. for arabs, 49-47; muslims, 48% favorable, 48% unfavorable. as shibley pointed out. attitudes towards nations such as egypt and libya that have moved in a democratized direction in the past 16 months, negative and have become more so during, during that period. and 42% of americans now endorse the clash of civilizations. still a minority, but up from 26% just a year ago.

so these trends, it seems to me, are not positive from the standpoint of a strong, of a strong relationship. i hope i'm wrong about that, but certainly these numbers are suggestive of some adverse trends. finally, as i promised, syria. there is, as shibley pointed out, a strong majority, 59%, supporting a no-fly zone, and i suspect that the fact that the libyan no-fly zone turned out to be almost cost-free from the american standpoint is influencing that judgment. by contrast, i have to say i found this an equally surprising finding. only 22% supporting arming the opposition. one might speculate to the extent that that's a valid result that it reflects americans' historical experience of the blowback in afghanistan where the weapons that we

distributed to the anti-soviet forces were then turned on us and people who supported our cause there and elsewhere. overall, and i will end here because it seems to me that this is where today's debate is going, there would seem to be a public predicate, a predicate in the public opinion for a somewhat stronger american stance vis-a-vis the syrian conflict than the obama administration has thus far adopted. governor romney's speech today is almost certain to raise this point, whether it will raise it in a way that captures the public imagination and strikes them as sensible remains to be seen, but i would say that this survey and governor rom ty's speech -- romney's speech plus developments on the ground may be the entering wedge for what i personally regard as an overdue public debate about what the united states ought to be doing

vis-a-vis the syrian conflict. >> bill, thank you so much. um, let me now turn to hisham, and bill talked about the apparent polarization of u.s. public opinion on foreign policy issues. perhaps not surprising four weeks out from a campaign in which foreign policy has suddenly and surprisingly begun to play a significant role in both the campaigns. but what we see in the arab world is with the emergence of more democratic politics, polarization as well. around a number of issues that relate to the relationship, the interaction between these arab states in transition and the united states and the west more broadly. the poll result that americans seem to understand this is about islamists struggling for power is suggestive, perhaps good media reporting, but perhaps of a creeping sense that the future

of the arab world looks like an argument amongst islamists. and, indeed, i think that many commentators, yourself included, in the wake of the attacks on the embassies have made the point that this was to some extent an argument amongst islamists. the arab, these arab states in transition unlike, say, the states of eastern europe don't have a clear model that they're driving toward. it's not clear what they want to be. can you talk a little bit about what those dividing lines are in the arab world and how they relate to where bill ended up, the shaky foundation that exists here, what's the foundation look like in the transition states for building a relationship with the u.s.? >> let me say, first, that as bill said and the american view of the arabs is more nuanced.

i wish i could say the same thing, but general view of the united states in the arab world, it is still on the main, in the main negative. for a variety of reasons. i cover washington to an audience or to people or readership that still sees the united states fairly or unfairly as the omniscient, omnipresent power in the middle east. and since arab states have been, since the second world war, since the end of what we used to call in the old days the liberal era have been ruled by a collection of autocratic, repressive dictators, lack of freedom with only few islands of freedom of expression such as lebanon before, um, that explains in part the tendency to believe in ulterior motives, the tendency to believe in conspiracy theories and what not. and the so-called arabs -- i

hate that term -- the arab uprisings have not changed that yet. there's also a legacy of past conflicts between the united states and some arab states, some arab societies. in the last few decades, united states engaged libya, syria, iraq in military confrontations, and the united states playing a military role in yemen and somalia. so there is that legacy. and there is the deeper legacy which is the resentment that exists in the arab world because of the traditional american support for these autocratic regimes. i remember, i mean, think of the second inauguration speech of george bush when he admitted for the first time as an american president and for the past 60 years we, the americans through both republican and democratic organizations looked the other

way when our arab friends were violating the basic rights of their own people. and we did nothing in the name of free flow of oil, alliance with the soviet union and in the name of stability, and bush said at the time, enough of that. and we see what happened, what led to 9/11. so there is that legacy, and, of course, the american -- the legacy of what most arabs see as the almost unconditional american support for israel. so we are in it -- we should keep this in mind when we discuss how arabs see the united states. unfortunately, i mean, those of us who study the modern history of the arab world would tell you that until the 1950s and mainly 1967 -- mostly 1967 -- there existed in the arab world, and i would even say beyond in the muslim world although i'm not an expert on the muslim world, and i don't watch it as closely as maybe i should, but there existed in the arab world a huge reservoir of goodwill towards the united states. as i grew up in beirut in the

1960s, i used to read the glowing writings about the united states written by people who emigrated from the arab world, mostly from lebanon to the united states in the 19th century and wrote beautifully and glowingly about the united states. everybody would talk about the legacy of education in the middle east, later on the american -- [inaudible] in cairo, the american-supported rights of the people after the first world war, you know, wilson's declarations, all of that. so it's not in the genes of arabs to be anti-american. there are political, historic reasons for this. now, we're talking about a number of arab states who are going through transition. now, let me remind you as someone with a leftist background so, of course, i, you know, when you grow up, you mellow, and you change a little bit. [laughter] the best description of -- and shibley heard me say that before, so maybe should --

indulgence. i will quote a great italian marxist philosopher, antonio -- [inaudible] who said the crisis consists in the fact that the old is dying and the new is not born yet. in this -- [inaudible] a great variety of morbid symptoms appear. a great variety of morbid symptoms appear. and when i look at benghazi, when i look at cairo, when i look at what's happening in syria, i see a great variety of morbid symptoms appearing and will continue to appear for a long time. we don't know, as you said, where we're going. there is a transition from, you know, we are now in the post-mubarak regime, post-ben ali, but where are we going? we really don't know.

and this is going to take years. let me quote another marxist, vladimir lenin said at one time sometimes decades pass and nothing happens, and sometimes in weeks decades happen. so in the ten days in cairo, decades happened. after decades of stagnation, a great deal of change started, it began. that's why i don't call it revolution. that's why i don't care about anybody calling it an arab spring. this is an uprising. we read it, and it was not led by a very well-established political party, an agent of revolution, if you want, an agent of change. it was not led by one meta, you know, ideological narrative. although -- and it was led by, it was begun by an islamist although later on, as i

suspected having a jaundiced view of islamists, be they wop the elections -- if they won the elections, i don't care, but now they are in charge. although i'm very critical of the islamists. there are stripes of islamists, there is spectrum of islamists. and most experts on egypt -- and i'm not one of them -- could tell before the elections, oh, don't worry, the muslim brotherhood are end up with 25% at most, 30% at most. they knew nothing about egypt. we knew nothing about egypt. we had no idea about the pulse. and this is no critique of the academics or -- [inaudible] but they deserve some, you know, poking once in a while just to be reminded. [laughter] unfortunately for my, for where i come from politically, the nature of governance in egypt, the nature of governance in

tunisia and libya and later on probably when assad falls in syria, the whole discussion is going to be within the all-encompassing islamist family. and the people i supported, you know, democrats with small d, the reformers, the progressives, the secularists are going to be watching with frustration. they did a lousy job in the elections in egypt and other places because like i remember in my youth in 1968, we were happy with the student movements in spain and in paris and this and that, you know? we had long hair, and we ruse used to drink and think about the future and demonstrate in the streets, and that's changed. in egypt i love them, they're like my kids. they demonstrated, they didn't do retail politics. they didn't know what organization means. they didn't understand, you know, that politics is coalition. so now the islamists are at the helm. i'll say this, and my last point. what happened recently after

that video and the reaction in egypt and benghazi -- benghazi's an act of terror, we know that, but let's talk about egypt. demonstrations in the rest of the arab world and the muslim world. this is not about religion. we are not engaged in theological disputation. this was from the crusades in the colonial era to postcolonialism. it's about political power. it's about economics. it's about control. what happened is, essentially, a stupid video produced by a bunch of idiotic people in california. nobody knew about it, it was on the internet until somebody, an islamist in egypt, translated it into arabic, played it on local television, and there is a plethora of uncontrolled television stations in egypt. and he brought in somebody to explain it and comment on it who engaged in whipping up frenzy

against the christians in egypt and all of that. [inaudible] grabbed this issue in their own competition with the mainstream islamists. the leader of the country, who happens to be a pus -- muslim brother, mohamed morsi, used it also with the sell fates -- zell fates. so here you have the two main -- [inaudible] using this issue as a pretext, as an excuse in their ongoing political fight. it's a political issue. from the day eye tole ya khamenei issued that stupid fatwa against -- [inaudible] because he was in deep, dire trouble. when after the movie -- [inaudible] in lebanon organized hezbollah into organizing big campaign because he's in a very defensive position today. so he needed that pretext. the same thing in pakistan, the

same thing in afghanistan. you know, talk about the stupid cartoons against the prophet muhammad or two years ago with terry jones and this bigoted priest or whatever in florida who decided to burn qurans. the same thing, it's about political power. and every time secretary of state or the president of the united states tells us that islam is a great religion or that judaism is fantastic religion or that christianity is wonderful religion, he is playing, he is entering into that crazy universe of these radical jihadists when it comes to the islamists. and by the way, i believe every religion has its own ayatollah, so don't worry about it. and so this is a huge mistake. it's a political issue. every time when we deal with these rabid radicals in those societies, we are entering into the crazy universe, and we lose. this is not religious, we are not engaged in religious

disputation, we are dealing with societies that are weak, that have been marginalized, that have been brutalized, that have been pulverized by their own people. and the arabs who still remember the glory days watch the rest of the world today in a globalized world as if the world is passing them by like a cara van and leaving them behind. and this is, this is it. thank you. >> hisham, thank you. [applause] i'm going to ask one brief question that i hope you can all tackle briefly before we open it up to the audience for your questions. and i think that you ended in a great place, hisham, because fundamentally these arguments are not about culture or religion, they're about politics and power. and as bill noted, americans seem to recognize that at some

level. in fact, i would say that although americans do like to be liked, they seem to admit on this set of issues a degree of pragmatism. and i wanted to ask you, shibley, as one of the authors of the poll whether you think that's an accurate lesson to draw from the data that we see, and how, you know, how do you expect the next american president will be able to build on that if so? you know, i have to say we had an election in venezuela yesterday, and so i woke up this morning thinking about latin america where the united states is not very popular. and has not been for a long time for many of the same reasons. that hisham noted with respect to the arab and muslim world. and yet the u.s. engages in a wide variety of fairly constructive economic, diplomatic relationships with latin american states. so the tension between wanting

to be liked and knowing that there are pragmatic reasons to engage in the world on the basis of interest, how is the next american president going to -- or what policies will the next american president be able to put forward and get public support for? shibley? >> are great, thanks. that is a really great question. and i just want to say one footnote to something bill said about knowledge networks, methodology, people who fielded this survey, it is a nationally-representative survey. what they do is they have a scientific, random selection of telephone numbers as well as addresses, and people who don't have internet connection, they provide them with a computer and a connection, and people who don't speech spanish, they provide them with spanish translation. and the methodologies online -- >> i was not questioning that. >> but it's not -- >> it's the relationship to the election. >> -- represented by age as well. >> no. that's not the point i was making.

the point i was making was that there's a difference between polling the universe of all adults on the one hand and polling people -- >> [inaudible] >> and the presidential. >> and so that's a perfect -- >> as adults i'm sure it's representative. >> anyway, that's the methodology question that could go, those who are interested, it's out there, we could look at it. it's interesting, though, the result that you said, i think, is right. i think that, you know, given what we've seen and what, you know, hisham said, you know, a lot of americans have to be frustrated watching this, the reaction take place. you know, separate even from just shooting at the embassy, just the kind of outcry and demonstrations. and yet they have, they do appear to have a nuanced, you know, interpretation. and part of it -- and really almost along the lines that hisham suggested which is this is being used by political tool, political tool of people who are competing with each other whether it's extremists or

somebody else, actually the public does have that interpretation. but i may also add that if you look at the muslim public, hisham is right, obviously, that the anti-american views are pervasive across different segments of the countries, it's pretty consistent and hasn't changed much. but there are differences in attitudes across muslim societies even on issues like this. and one of the interesting things is that there is, you know, the world public opinion, pipa actually did a poll in 2009 among muslim countries trying to see whether in principle they support the freedom of speech of people who criticize religion or think that countries should pass laws against people who attack religion. and there were major differences. i mean, majorities in egypt and pakistan wanted to see people punished for attacking religion.

majorities in turkey and afghanistan and azerbaijan wanted to see people have the right to criticize religion. so there are differences across muslim societies. it's not, it's not the same thing. we have to keep that in mind. just one final note, um, which has to do also with interpreting particularly attitudes on syria, but broadly, you know, how -- if you're an american presidential candidate, what do you say here. i'm not sure i agree with bill on this urge of americans wanting to do more on syria. i don't agree with that necessarily even though it's -- i want something done on syria. just putting that separately. i'm not talking about myself in terms of, you know, when you see all the -- i'm not sure what -- [laughter] but that's another story, you know? >> join the crowd. >> it's hard to see all this, you know, carnage and bloodshed and not wanting to do something. but if you look at the american

public, it's really overwhelmingly opposed to direct military intervention. and i think the aberration to that is this -- and if you look particularly at the opposition to even arming the troops, because they understand it's a slippery slope, the, you know, kind of the resistance to being engaged in another war, you have to look at this no-fly zone as something of an aberration because it's an interpretation. is it really costless? libya was almost costless. does it really entail bombings? i'm not sure we should make a lot of that, but i know a lot of people have discomforting no doubt. we all have discomfortment it's just very hard to watch death and destruction on the scale we're watching and say i can't do anything about it. that's there. but even bigger than that, i think, the public is resisting seeing a path that would take america into war. i think that's pretty clear. >> uh-huh. so if romney is, as reported, arguing for greater intervention

today, he's facing an uphill climb. >> well, you can see only 22% support arming the rebels in this poll, but even worse for him, the opposition among independents is even greater, as you might expect, you know, the tendencies. but if you're looking -- so it's very interesting to see how the public will will react to it. my own view is if he were to make that announcement and we were to have a poll tomorrow, that that will increase. the support for it will increase by virtue of the fact that some of his core supporters want to endorse him and, therefore, it wouldn't be a question of, you know, then we are -- leadership does count for something. >> right. >> in this particular case. it sways opinion a little bit, but not enough to make a difference for him because it'll be mostly his core supporters. it wouldn't be people who are swing voters. >> uh-huh, thanks. so, hisham, is there room for a sort of pragmatic interspaced

american engagement with the muslim world? is would that receive a positive response? >> i'm a big believer in american engagement in the arab and in the muslim world. i'm also a big believer that there are certain things only the united states can do. from certain military interventions or providing certain aid or political support, technical support. i'm always reminded by the fact that the europeans were so helpless to stop the mass killing of bosnians in kosovo in the 990s -- 1990s which occurred on european soil. which for the first time since the holocaust where people on european soil were being killed en masse because of their ethnic and religious background, and the great european power did nothing. europe should live with that shame for a long time. only until the americans -- [inaudible] it's not pretty, but only the persons could intervene and stop it. so i am a great believer in

madeleine albright's -- >> indispensable nation? >> yeah. the united states is the indispensable power. warts and all, that's it. that's the reality, i think. so the united states should be engaged, should continue to engage in the arab world. the united states should invest in a long-term alliance with those people in the arab world and the muslim world who share with the united states certain values, who believe that it serves their own interest to have a good relationship with the west. today believe that it's in our interest to be part of a globalized world. they believe that it's in their own interest to have good economic and political relationship with the united states even when we disagree with the united states. i mean, one of the good things that i liked about this poll is that the majority of americans still believe that democracy in those countries are going through transition or in the arab world -- [inaudible] and we're more fully in turkey than the rest of the arab world because you have a more democratic system in turkey.

they support it even when the turks or these new supposed democratic governments take positions that are not necessarily to the liking of the united states. this is great. this is the nuanced thing that i thought bill was talking about. okay. we acknowledge that these countries are -- since we're talking about countries in transition, that they are going through transition as a political fact. the islamists are in charge. let's keep their feet to the fire. let's engage them. and let's, you know, let's -- and engaging means that you deal with them, you cooperate with them, you keep their feet to the fire, and you pressure them. let's be blunt about this. countries pressure each other. the united states imposed sanctions on companies that belong to canada and to france. so let's not kid ourselves. in the international relationship, love is not a requirement. [laughter] self-interest is what drives the, each nation. the united states should serve its interests in the middle east, but there are people in the middle east who are supposed

to be our natural allies. maybe among them some islamists, i don't know. i wouldn't hold my breath, you know but you engage them. a country like egypt which is a key country, it's been there for 7,000 years, you know, these people created central government. they have huge problems. they may still live in the glories of the old days, but you have to face the fact that they are poor, they've marginalized themselves. they marginalized themselves. egypt used to be the trendsetter in the arab world for 150 years. for 30 years under mubarak egypt became a marginal power. morsi cannot even influence events in gaza. egypt is not equipped to deal with turkey as a regional power. egypt's still chafing because it lives in the shadow of israel. egypt can't even compete with iran, and they used to do that 50 years ago, 60 years ago. so egypt is a poor country, and the egyptians should show we have common interests, we need

to help you, we want to help you, but you're going to have to follow certain rules too. the united states should not give one penny to any country unless there is reciprocity. i happen to believe -- i mean, in an ideal world we shouldn't give israel one penny, and we shouldn't give egypt one penny. but it's not an ideal world, and you have to deal with them. so when morsi waits for 30 hours for his first reaction when the american embassy is stormed, essentially, and the first reaction is silly, you know, on facebook, when he essentially starts by denouncing the movie or the video, he ends by saying i asked my embassy in washington to pursue these people legally. and in the middle he just says in passing as a state, of course, we're supposed to protect private and public property including foreign legation. there was no word about the

embassy, there was no word of sorrow, there was no word of condemnation, there was no word of accountability. nothing. i mean, you know, you love these allies, right? [laughter] and i think -- i was, i was flabbergasted because the president of the united states when he made his comment didn't say a word. and initial reaction of the united states was appalling, too, in the sense that we denounced libya more than we denounced the fact that, you know, people were demonstrating for something that of course the united states government has nothing to do, and we didn't denounce the fact that the leadership in egypt didn't say anything. you see, the arabs will always tell you it's a minority of people. of course it's a minority of people. it's always a minority of people. do you think a majority of the french people stormed the bass tee? -- bastille? [laughter] i mean, the revolution?

do you think a majority of americans fought the british for independence? no, hell no. it was one-third with the british, one-third against the british and another third sitting on the side. so it is not the majority that does these things. it is what the political class in a given country says about the minorities, what the intellectuals and the academics and the journalists say when these things happen. it is not the mob. i can deal with the mob. but who is in charge of that country, who is the intellectual? i, myself, what happened to salman rushdie, there were only few voices in the arab and muslim world who had the guts to stand up and say that crazy fatwa is crazy. >> okay -- >> i want to follow up -- >> quickly. >> you mentioned a couple things. one is on the foreign aid, first of all, before morsi. i mean, part of the thing that we have to understand is that, actually, the egyptian public doesn't want to see the aid either. >> right. >> so it's not the american

public and the egyptian -- so who are the people who are actually pushing for aid? it is primarily government agencies and bureaucracies. >> our military. >> are well, they have a lot of interest in that. >> maybe they're being hard-headed in the face of -- [inaudible conversations] >> and generally even in congress you say how are we going to persuade people. well, when you send people from the pentagon, pentagon says we need this aid because we need that relationship, it sways, and it sways there too. so both the -- the oddity of it it is not the public on both sides that is actually pushing for the aid, it's these agencies. we have to keep that in mind, it's self-interest. but on the issue of morsi and what we should be doing, i have to just differentiate between two things. one is i absolutely agree the u.s. has to first and foremost protect its interests and make it clear, no question, you know? and as the president called morsi and said this is unacceptable. regardless, it doesn't matter what else is happening, this is a red line. but on the other hand, we can't

panic if an environment of that -- in an environment of that sort. we, you know, you said how transitions are unpredictable, and there are all kinds of -- i don't remember the term that you used. but when you look at all of that, this is the time not to pull back. there's still important american interests. you need to engage. the outcome is not decided. there is a battle going on in each one of these countries. and if you don't weigh in diplomatically and economically and militarily if need be, the outcome isn't going to be to your liking, and the worst thing to do is to assume it's all the same, you can't do anything about it and pull back. that is a mistake, and i think panic is the wrong strategy. >> okay. i think those are two strong endorsements for an interest-based approach. i think the challenge in the democratic society, ours as well as on the other side, is whether you can sustain support for such an approach. hisham said love's got nothing to do with it.

>> i like to quote -- [laughter] tina turner. >> i love your wife. >> look, i know time for questions is getting short, so let me be, let me be brisk. i'll just make three points very quickly. first of all, you know, building on the centrality of egypt in this discussion, as a naive american, one of the things that i've learned from your survey work in recent years is that egyptian public opinion is much closer to pakistani public opinion than most americans have understood. and that, you know, and that, it seems to me, is an important predicate going forward. i absolutely agree that continued engagement is essential, but we have to be clear-eyed about what we're engaging here and now. and this is not a public that likes the united states, and the degree of antipathy in egypt to the united states and the

pervasiveness of it is something we have to take onboard as one of the factors shaping our policy. and, you know, if i've misread your surveys, please, correct me, but i don't think i have. the results, the results are too massive. that's number one. number two, just to be pugnacious -- [laughter] i do not accept the distinction between politics and interests on the one hand and culture and religion on the other. i think that's a false start for the discussion. won't work for the united states, and it won't work for the muslim world either. you cannot manipulate sentiments unless the sentiments are there to begin with. and i do not buy the proposition that an egyptian public and the free and fair election gave more than 75% of the vote to this islamist family that you quite properly refer to, that budget a reflection of some minority manipulating public opinion, that is public opinion.

that is public opinion, and there is a important religious component to that. and what one of the things that's important to that religious component is a concept of blasphemy that was pervasive in the western world five centuries ago and which as a matter of public policy we have left behind. that is a religiously-based conflict, and we have to face up to it. this is not an argument for disengagement, but if we try to fool ourselves into believing, well, nobody really cares about that stuff, they're just being manipulated, i don't believe that. i just don't. and i would like to be wrong, but i don't think i am. >> okay. with that, let me open it up. um, we've got about 15 minutes, and i certainly appreciated the engagement. i will also appreciate it if you will keep your questions brief and to the point and identify

yourself before you ask. and why don't we start right here in front. >> hi, hamid, voice of america. how much difference did the -- [inaudible] compared to the angry reaction to the movie and would the views impact u.s. policy regardless of who wins the presidential election? >> okay. you're directing that to anyone in particular in who wallets -- >> i didn't quite, i didn't quite understand the final question, the bottom line question is -- >> how will it affect voting? >> would the views of american public toward muslims and arabs impact the u.s. policy regardless of who wins the presidential elections, whether it's romney or obama? >> let me just make two points. one point is about importance of issues. i happen to think that foreign policy isn't much of an issue in

our elections anyway, and even though it has, you know, recent events have increased it and today romney's giving a speech, by and large that's not likely this late in the day unless there's a war or something on that scale to have much of an impact. and i think what we haven't talked about is how people rank these issues. we do have a couple of questions in the poll about the ranking of the issue, relations with the muslim world and also ranking the arab/israeli issue in the priorities. people do rank it in the top five, but in an open question not in terms of comparison to other issues if you put it in there, and republicans, oddly enough, tend to rank it a little bit higher than democrats. and maybe that's one thing that romney is doing. now, if you -- what would happen if there is an election? obviously, let's say we'll make a difference between romney and obama on this. i'd make two points. bill made a very good point

early on howl democrats and -- how democrats and republicans are operating after two very different paradigms about the relationship with arab and muslim countries. and you can see it in public opinion polls. the constituent is says having -- they do see it more as a clash of civilization than as clash of conflict. it is pervasive, you find it in almost every issue, including the arab/israeli issue, by the way. so there is a philosophical difference in the constituencies. second, i don't know what romney, you know, has in mind. we don't know exactly what kind of foreign policy we'd have, but the people who are around him are more or less many of the same people who were around bush before, so i suspect we would expect something more along that line. >> okay. what i'm going to do because time is short is take several questions and then come back to the panel. so why don't we start right behind you, and then the lady here on the aisle, and then we'll go across this way in the purple shirt and the lady in the

white jacket. >> hi, my name's bernard, i'm from the university of santa cruz, student. and in regards to intervention in syria or what the u.s. policy should be in syria, how do we account for lower-level tiers of fallout if we decide to intervene? for instance, the 13%al o white population that affiliates itself with the assad regime. what do you think will happen to them? do you think that can be foreseen if we decide to intervene and there's a change in government? >> thank you. and can owe just send the -- >> just i want to -- >> can you identify yourself please? >> [inaudible] from the american university of beirut. i want to ask mr. galston that the 75% who voted for the islamic parties not because they were islamic parties, because in egypt for 70 years there were no

political parties. so the islamic parties became more political and were fused into the system. it's more political than islamic. and for hisham, mohamed morsi what happened in demonstration in egypt, he was in a visit, trip visit to european union in brussels, and he really said that i'm against that -- [inaudible] on the prophet muhammad, but we also don't expect attack private property, diplomatic buildings, and this is i'm against -- >> okay. >> just i want the u.n. start to enact a law to stop the abuse of the free speech against other religions. >> okay. so a question about the possibility of blasphemy law or norm established at the u.n. which gets to the point you

made, bill, about the fact that this is a deeply-seeded value in a lot of cultures. and then we go here and then to julie. >> first of all, thank you very much for your insightful presentation. >> your name, please? >> my dame is dorgan. my question goes to mr.melhem. i think it was said that the muslim brotherhood is pro-business and socially conservative, if i recall correctly. where does that exactly place the next administration here in the u.s. and american perceptions as to how they actually perceive of the muslim brotherhood or morsi's freedom and justice party specifically as far as it being a unique element identifying itself as such in the family of islamists as you put it, and as you emphasized, it is politics and economics, not necessarily religion and culture. thank you very much. >> okay. so maybe the republican voters. you can hand the microphone right in the -- right there. thank you. and then we'll come up --

>> my question is for dr. telhami. i'm wondering how much being informed affects responses. so have you, in your long experience with polling, have you been able to look at responses, the difference between sophisticates and novices? and also on certain questions when you provide more information, for instance, instead of talking about egypt's role with stability, on a question like that if you had said, you know, egypt allowing u.s. warships to go through the suez canal or overflight rights, when you ask questions that way, does can it end up affecting responses? >> thank you. so we've got four fascinating questions. i'm going to start with bill and go down this way and give shibley the last word. bill. [laughter] >> well, let me just respond to a couple of them. i, i confess, you know, when the young man in the purple shirt asked his question, i had a response very much like tammy's. hmm, muslim brotherhood,

pro-business, socially conservative, do we have a party like that in the united states? [laughter] and apparently we do. and so perhaps they'll make beautiful music together. [laughter] you know, if mr. romney -- >> will not be music. noise. [laughter] >> if mr. romney becomes, becomes president. you know, but let me, you know, let me respond, you know, to the question that was directly addressed to me because i think that, i think that question raised, raised a very important point. yes, you are absolutely right, you know, for decades the muslim brotherhood was the only game in town, and the muslim brotherhood, of course, was not exactly welcomed by the egyptian government whether it was nasser's or sadat's or mubarak's with open arms, you know?

it was harassed, suppressed, jailed, etc. but it was there. and so, so it has much deeper roots in egyptian society than the groups of secularists, liberal intellectuals, etc. and it is entirely possible that over time as the newly-empowered islamist parties come face to face with the realities of governing a country that they will respond to that in various ways, and if they don't master the very real social and economic problems, the egyptian public may shift, may shift its views over time. so i am not, you know, i am not saying that the current political figure, configuration is, you know, letters of jade,

you know, carved into tablets of stone. not at all. that can change. but at the same time, you know, i think there is a lot of evidence to the effect that egyptian, egyptian public opinion is deeply conservative on a range of religious issues. this is not an accident. i don't expect that to change. and to the extent that there are aspects of western culture including freedom of speech that rub up against deep-seeded religious beliefs, religious beliefs which i can respect even if i don't agree with them as a political matter, i think we will have an ongoing tension with that set of beliefs. we, being the united states. not just the american

government, but the american people. because we believe in freedom of speech just as deeply as people feel, many people throughout the muslim world b in the idea of morning through speech the central figure of islam. and in the short term, i think it's going to be very, very difficult to, you know, to bridge that divide whenever it becomes central in a policy dispute. i wish i could come to a different conclusion, but i think that that is the fact of the matter, and i don't think that is simply a consequence of the history of suppression of the muslim brotherhood. >> thank you, bill. hisham? >> quickly on thal -- the alawites, this will take forever -- [laughter] we have, unfortunately, civil war, we're going to see more and

more communal clashes in syria, and unless the syrian situation is contained somehow by foreign intervention, we will see a situation similar to lebanon in '75, '76. and the alawites in the end will suffer. i would hasten to say that not necessarily all of them are with the regime. there are more nuanced politics in syria than people are led to believe. and i think from the american side we should always -- as the americans have been doing, actually -- that we will not help you unless you represent all stripes, you know, of syrian society, all that syrian -- human mosaic, let's say. and i think this is the message that the united states should continue to repeat when they are dealing with the opposition. not only where the alawites are

concerned, the christians are concerned, and these are legitimate concerns. when we were there with 150,000 soldiers, men and women, and yet we've seen 50% of the christians of iraq leaving, which is a shame. um, we can discuss it afterwards if you want. on the issue of morsi, i think morsi when he went to italy denounced the attacks after he spoke -- or after the president of the united states called him and, hopefully, read the riot act to him. morsi's reaction was appalling, period. he was exploiting it for his own political ends. and if you read that facebook page of his, it's just appalling. this is not the views of a president of 75 million people, of a country that's been around for 7,000 years. he was acting as if he was a small-time politician in the opposition, not the leader of a supposedly great country. and there's no, there's no disputation on this issue. on the question of blasphemy,

i'm against any law against palace blasphemy. i don't like the fact that europeans in germany and other places have laws that criminalize denying the holocaust. in germany i can understand it for a year or ten after the war, but it should not be the case. in this country here we denounce people whether they are anti-semitic or anti-muslims, and we criticize them. but you cannot have a law against that. this is free speech. people have the right to be stupid and say outrageous things. one thing -- one of the reasons i became an american, it's because, again, let me use this as a secularist and use that language, because of what i would call my secular bible which is the bill of rights and the constitution, the federalist papers and everything authored by jefferson, lincoln, all these great guys. it's because the constitution, and i want the american president and every american official to remind the people of this constitution every day and

to remind the egyptians and the pakistanis and anybody who doesn't like it, this is our constitution. take it or leave it. live with it. [applause] let me tell you another thing. if you pile the books and the articles that were written against islam in the last 1400 years in europe written by europeans, you would end up with a middle-sized pyramid. [laughter] that did not prevent them -- that fact did not prevent islam from being in the last few decades and generations the fastest-growing religion in the world. until recently islam was the fastest-growing religion in this great country. now it is second to mormonism. okay in -- okay? if 700 million people are going to be afraid of terry jones, is in the religion that was behind the creating the great culture

of baghdad, damascus, cairo? in medieval times we were more tolerant. we used to have debates about reason, faith. and we didn't lynch people because of this. why? because we were powerful. why? because we had self-confidence. there was a great passage written by nietzsche. i'm sorry i have to quote philosophers, i spent several years of my life studying philosophy. nietzsche has a great saying. he didn't like judaism and christianity, mind you, but he said about islam, and he was talking about philanderers, he say i welcome this religion. why? because that religion says yes to life. it created a great culture. it says yes to life.

it is not t that we have to hide our women, it is not the debate about whether your beard should be that length or that robe should be that length. this is a great religion when we wish to discuss cultural things and reason and philosophy and aristotle and plato. this is not the religion of the ayatollah khomeini. and if muslims want to reduce their religion to this, that's their business. but they cannot tell you in the united states, you know, what you should say about islam. because i can tell you many bad things about muslims say about other religions. but who cares in the end? one final thing. business, business -- [laughter] islamist business. [inaudible] that's why they are not revolutionary, they are conservative. they are extremely conservative. and that's the reason they scare me. but there is also another thing, and i have to agree with bill here. if you look at -- [inaudible] especially in this country in the late 1940s when he was

horrified about what he saw in america as decadent, decadence, hedonism, weak spiritualism, and he said if there's a conflict between us and them, we will win because you are stronger. and let me even say something that many islamists don't like. when you listen and hear and read the rantings of usama bin laden, what to -- what do you see about the united states? deck -- decadence, materialism, no spiritual core. what do you see? you see echoes of -- [inaudible] yes, they want to do business, and we know that. but they have also a certain cultural views about the west in general, and we should be, we should be honest about this. >> we will leave the last few minutes of this program for live coverage of the u.s. senate. see the rest of the discussion

on our web site at c-span.org. look in the video library. the senate is about to gavel in for what's expected to be a brief pro forma session while lawmakers are on break for the november elections. no legislative business expected to be conducted today. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 9, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jim webb, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on friday, 10:30 a.m. on friday,

celebrated its 25th anniversary with a gala last month that the national building museum here in washington and during the event organizers and attorneys honor the late andrew for his reporting on the conservative platform and issues featured speakers include reince priebus, stephen hayes and laura ingraham. this is about two hours and 40 amex. >> ladies and gentlemen, once again, here is chris plante. [applause] >> following keith olberman. what's better than that? sorry, to go to the glasses. i want to thank you the people that took my que during a dinner to my obama phone. this actually is kind of jim obama phone.

i'm kind of day dumb phone donley in 2012. when i was asked to the dinner tonight i was honestly uncomfortable about accepting because you can't trust brent bozell are the people he surrounds himself with. they would sell their mothers for one cheap laugh and then move on merrily. i thought about it for a moment, and i almost declined but then i thought what the hell, there's a free dinner and free drinks. so, i would go ahead and take them up on the author. and besides i work in talk radio which is a very unstable business, and i could be fired at pretty much any moment has has been proven at least once already. [laughter] so i've got to keep some connections in town just in case next friday and get the bad news at 12:05, which is what happens.

but i do love the media research center. i know a lot of us do, because these guys don't follow the rules, and i don't follow the rules as prescribed has taught to me in catholic school, didn't really take very well. and conventional wisdom has that if you can't beat them, you join them. at the media research center they've taken that adage and turned it on its year. we can't join them so let's beat the hell out of them. [applause] my job is to shuffle people upon the stage, up onto the stage and allow them to do the real work. i'm just kind of the window dressing to present the awards and to all of that good stuff.

and we have tonight a very busy night, a lot of stuff to show you and great people to present awards and receiving awards. we have for awards plus our funny is, our videos, plus the william f. buckley video for journalism -- excellence in journalism. it happens. plus a grand finale. just wait. applause even more fun after the event with of a davison brothers band performing on the stage on the other end of this extraordinary building, and this is a truly extraordinary building of all of the amazing buildings in washington this is one worth noting with great history that we are just getting history on tonight as a matter of fact. soak to present the first to awards tonight, we have a woman who has graced us with her presence several times before and is back by popular demand. she is the most listened to woman and political talk-radio

in the united states of america. she is a regular fox news contributor and the principal substitute host on the o'reilly factor. she is the number one "new york times" best selling author of five books including "the obama diaries," "shut up and saying," and the new hit you must buy if you haven't already, "america's cultural decline from muffin tops to body shots." the extraordinary laura ingraham. [applause] >> thank you everybody. how are you? good, plante is awesome. he's a great guy a and radio host and washington, d.c. institution, and i'm delighted. i feel like i am here amongst a lot of friends and an incredible

-- thank you -- and an incredible and beautiful environment, and also in an interesting election season to say the least. the first award for the evening -- before we get to that i have to start with a joke. can i start off with a joke? joe biden. sorry, that's the joke. [laughter] [applause] followed by another joke. nancy pelosi. sorry. as an ardent practicing catholic -- yeah, sorry. i was told by my friends at saturday night live i do the best nancy pelosi impersonation, but i'm still waiting for the but they are going to write for me on saturday night live. they seem to avoid doing the actual bit about goofy liberals. it's only republicans that they do over there. first award for the evening is

the obamagasm award. i can't believe i'm saying that come troubling. there is a ritual for about 25 years the media research center has been documenting every idiocy as you know from the media as they celebrate one liberal hero after another, and let me just say the people we are going to be talking about tonight, they love politicians who want to raise your taxes, right? they love politicians who want to expand the nanny state -- and i've got to check all the boxes here. the president who has a wandering eye. well, if they have the right political views. they love their wives who actually stand by those presidents or politicians of wandering eyes as long as there is a senate seat potentially up

for grabs the love of things communist. i had a chance to live in the former soviet union, and i don't really look back on my time in the soviet union, and as a college student with like planning for the days of soviet russia, but you get the sense that some of our friends in the media if we can only have their bread lines again it would be of some from castro to gorbachev to another communist coming to mind, obama -- o'reilly is going to yell at me for that. they love this. it brings them back to the day they could draw a bright line. the evil united states versus the communitarians in the former soviet union. they love celebrities who, when they hear the word complicated

acronyms like gdp they think gdp, gdp -- is that like d&g like dolce and ghana? no, gdp, it isn't a clothing line. do you think we are kidding? no, we are not kidding. before we provide you the final expert of 2012, we are going to give you a compilation of our media heroes for the past 25 years. ♪ once the governor of arizona when he entered the race nearly a year ago he had the courage to say that as the president he would probably have to raise taxes coming and he never recovered from his courage. >> the soviet union, industry born of a revolution, bound together by a dream. it is the dream of a socialist

nation marching towards the first communist state. the soviet union, a i.t. union. estimate the of the whole thing is to and most educated history and history, for that many of them say they have castro and his socialist revolution to thank. [inaudible] >> bill clinton is such a great president, or is their something i want to say almost sexy about a man who can get away with things over and over again? >> she clearly heated been thought of as just bill clinton's wife.

last november, 1998 hillary clinton showed the world what she can do on the campaign trail without him. political master, every bit as gaveling as his. >> for castro, freedom starts with education, and the literacy alone cuba would rank as one of the freest nation on earth. literacy rate is 96%. >> the new speaker was on the floor for a time holding her 6-year-old grandson ought while giving directions on how agents were to proceed. it seemed the ultimate multitasking taking care of the children and the country. >> people have called to the savior, the messiah, the messenger of change. >> i like to say that in some ways barack obama is the first president since george washington to be taking a step

down into the oval office. >> we know that wind can make a cold day feel cooler, but can national pride make a freezing day feel warmer? it seems to be the case. regardless of the final crowd numbered estimates, never have so many people shivered for so long with such joy. from above even the seals must be in awe. >> in a way obama is standing above the country, of the world, a sort of god. [applause] didn't clint eastwood is a the best when he said we believe to oprah was crying? and now we are all crying. that's the problem. and in 2012 really very little has changed with our friends in the media. they still love all the same

heroes, and they still get hot flashes at night. and i said this on my radio show the other day but a lot of these male journalists seem positively post menopausal in their reaction of president obama. so this year we offer as the first award in our first nominee for the obamagasm three finalists. the first nominee is the man who whose infatuation with president obama is someone that you will probably remember. sooner or later it's going to go -- it's free to basically get a r rating from the picture association and yes, ladies and gentlemen, who do you think? let me hear some shouts. this is too easy. kress threw up my leg mathews. isn't it a surprise when you hear him talking about obama and he still has his clothes on?

back in college we used to have an acronym that we would scream out when there was a lot of public display of affection and a would-be who get a room and she's always screaming that at the television when chris matthews is speaking and on july july 17th chris was fanning himself once again. >> he's done everything right. he's raised his family right and fought his way all the way to the top of the review and the time to beat the blind test comes to the top. everything he's got is clean as a whistle. he's not only broken the law, he's never done anything wrong, the perfect father, husband, the perfect american and all they do is trash the guy. >> that is the bar being set for the presidency. he hasn't broken any law.

okay we all can accept the nomination for the presidency. look, the only trashing that has been done over the last three and a half years is to our economy and our international stature and that has been done by this president, and actually, chris, complemented obama many times and all of you that listen to my radio show why try to do it fair and balanced and and look, president obama might not know a lot about economics, but he doesn't mean karaoke so let's just celebrated that. ♪ so in love with you. i mean, come on. imagine mitt romney doing that. ♪ i'm so in love with you. i'm sorry. i know this is mrc de you've got

to give us a vote. our second obamagasm -- i even saying that. is it just me or is that an awful thing to say? obamagasm award, there is a priest here and going to have a confession after saying that. i'm heading out there. believe me. it goes to someone that celebrated a movement, not just an individual, and this was on october 11th. adc's -- i'm going to do her voice, diane sawyer a perpetually heavy breathing voice who's trying -- i should like her. i'm sorry. i feel guilty doing this. was trying valiantly to describe the emergence of the movement

known as the benevolent occupiers wall street. >> we thought we would bring you up-to-date on those protesters, the occupied wall street movement. as of tonight it has spread to more than 250 american cities, more than a thousand countries. every continent but an arctic a defeat to -- antarctic appearing estimate right up there with 57 states. occupy wall street has spread to a thousand countries. why not just say a bazillion? god bless her. our final nominee for the obamagasm award is britain's's own alien life form known as the long walk off a short piers

morgan. i don't understand why cnn thought it would be to at 9 p.m. with a british host who looks like he just got a really bad when -- wedgie in a british prep school. that didn't make sense to me but what do i know? i only work for the number one cable rated news network in the united states. [applause] on december 5th, good old piers was interviewing obama's chief strategist, otherwise known as mr. whipple, mr. axelrod. remember those commercials, don't squeeze the charmin? i swear it is his doppleganger.

it's not that he's interviewing a guest, he is actively interviewing himself. this is when we will the clip. >> when you watch the president always feels he has got so many pluses comegys personal comegys and some come he can be funny, she has this great image for america but a lot of things are just perfect about the barack obama. [applause] >> we have a lot of men in this room. how many times -- looker now that the table. everybody has a different look. everybody is unique. i tell my children and doesn't matter what you look like on the outside it matters who you are on the inside, in your heart.

i try to tell that to my kids. men, look around you at the table. how many of you would never let the words triple off your tongue "ghosh, he's handsome." [laughter] i'm just saying. the thing is i like watching peers morgan when he is doing that once a month review of the jackson family. is it just me or is the jackson family on cnn every every night? it seems like they are coasting one of the shows. we can give you 50 examples of all of this, but then you would all get sick and throw up on your table made and would have to declare this entire event, so why won't do that. so these are the finalists and we gave them to the judges and painstaking process as it was and from a judge myself i gave

this to myself and we chose the winner of the obamagasm award. all right, are you ready? i feel like i'm at one of those really terrible war shows. okay. it's so exciting. is this a disturbing sign is written in farsi. sorry, it's arabic. what ever. the obamagasm award, kennedy anyone but -- it's chris matthews. ♪ >> sadly chris couldn't join us again this year. [inaudible] >> all they do is to trash the guy. ♪

>> does it really matter if i talk over chris matthews? there's something in his contract that tells him he has to cut a lot with a copy of salles berlinski's copy of radicals so he couldn't be here but accepting on his behalf is frankly his existence these days. this is someone that i once called the mr. been -- bean of republican politics and i don't think that he took it in the usual sense that men would take from teasing from someone like me. i thought how could this nice guy from wisconsin who seems to be just so upright and honest and kind of matter of fact about conservatism, how could he possibly deliver all of this wonderful ground game and voter registration and funding to the republican party? but ladies and gentlemen, let me just say some people might be

worried about 2012 and what is going to happen. but the one thing they shouldn't worry about is the man who is heading at the republican national committee. my friend, the rnc chairman. he sought mr. bean, it is mark privus. ♪ >> well, thank you, laura. thank you come laura very much for this. man, am i glad that i am a conservative because, you know, if laura one deduce what kind of a mother means her child piers can you imagine what you'd say about parents would name their

son reince? for the record reince priebus is what happens when a greek and a german gets married. it is like a cultural disaster. and colbert actually figured out something with my name. if you actually take the files out of the name reince priebus, think about this, you get rnc -- wait it gets worse and it gets more fitting, prbs. so, god does have a sense of humor. but don't worry, i am a normal guy. my kids are named jack and grace so we went the opposite direction of my name. anyway, thank you for having me here today. there is no question that i have seen firsthand the by is and the vicious attacks of the liberal media. they can be tough out there. if you are not careful you get bruised and bloody. and i am surprised there's not a program for that and obamacare.

at the rnc we are doing our best to hold the president accountable, and i hope he will agree. besides the record money that we spent on tv this year, we have launched over 100 hard-hitting web of videos on youtube. in fact, the other day i went downstairs and talked to the guys that make our videos coming and he told me that the one that we released a couple days ago received over 100,000 hits on youtube, and i thought man, what would msnbc do with that kind of fewer ship -- viewership? i know the current viewer tv is disappointed they were not one of the nominees, but brandt explained to me that you actually have to have the viewers to be nominated. i recently read that obama's campaign spokesperson was on

jennifer granholm's show one comment to be coming and i wondered if she is on current tv, who is watching current tv? [laughter] it's great to see so many people here tonight and it's a shame that chris matthews couldn't be here with us to see what a large audience looks like, right? [applause] maybe we are too hard on chris sometimes. i think he tries. but it just seems like he's always asking the wrong questions. he made painfully obvious a few months ago when he appeared on jeopardy i will take last-place finishes for a thousand dollars, please. let me conclude by thanking you the media to become media research center for your pursuit of honesty and accountability

and journalism. we need a little more of that in the media and in the political discourse and those that lean to the left and lean forward. congratulations to brent bozel for fighting for years, 25, the silver anniversary, and i see that you colored your be your little bit to celebrate the anniversary tonight. so to the mrc, keep it up. and the rnc we will be working nonstop the next 40 days to save the american dream and the end of this liberal european nightmare that we have in the white house.

[applause] this is our generation's time for choosing. this is our generation's rendezvoused with destiny and we are going to keep fighting for the next generation. and i promise you something. i promise you on my life i am not here tonight or anywhere across america because i am worried about the future of the republican party. we are here tonight because we are worried about the future of the country that we love, and let me tell you put we are going to save this country and five-year barack obama in november. thank you and god bless you. ♪ >> you know the great thing about this is we are among

friends and friends tease friends, and he is so gracious and unlike so many politicians whom they get all offended if you tease them, but i think for the last two years i called him rance prance and he's still the nicest person and i adore him. he's phenomenal. before i continue i also just want to remind everyone who is here who has taken time out of their busy schedules and have traveled, many people have come out to me tonight from mississippi and california, you have come a long way to honor and celebrate the media research center. i can tell you that i'm so thankful for your being here, for brent bozell, tim gramm, his entire team, it takes a huge effort and for normal team to do what they do on a daily basis. and brent, i am a in awe of what you've done the last 25 years.

thank you. [applause] >> time to hit that golden anniversary. now, a lot has been said recently about media bias, and brent got a great gift a few years ago when even the gala organization announced the results of his most recent poll that 60% of americans viewed the current media landscape as either untrustworthy or biased, 60%. and i think to myself of course. i mean even democrats know that most of the guys that work for the mainstream, so called mainstream or democrat. the few studies that have been done overwhelmingly approve that. and i think to myself with a second. george stephanopoulos, former clinton operatives whom -- i've

been on good morning america with him. he couldn't be nicer to me. but when you are asked as he has been asked recently about media bias, and he says well, no, i don't think there is media bias, it's like all of us in this room at one time saying we don't have a national debt. it's like we do we actually have a 16 trillion-dollar plus national debt. no we don't have a national debt. you lose all credibility. well, at no point is the bayh is more obvious than during a presidential campaign season when the media are always out for all things conservative or republican, and of course if you are one of those republicans who gets paid to criticize other republicans, then you're kind of the toast of the town.

you are accepting awards on behalf of media matters tonight. you're not being toasted here. and i am thinking of course of a number of, well number of he rose to all of you here tonight like charlie crist you can say boo or something. at least a few mashed potatoes left on the plate. jon huntsman. sorry, he likes to speak mandarin in his sleep. arlen specter. boo. lincoln chafee. but you understand, your boos fall on deaf ears because these are courageous men of a great principle and great conviction because when push came to shove they really were not conservative at all. in other words, they really weren't republican, at least the careful ones. some hour second award for tonight is appropriately called, and this is true in mrc brent

fashioned the knuckle-draggers award. what do you need to do? you need only compare their treatment of us and in their treatment of their fellow liberals. so we are going to give you a sampling. over the years to prove the point just so you get it. so you think dan quayle versus al gore, you think maybe bush versus obama, maybe george clooney verses clint eastwood, their idea of balance. ♪ >> they put an arm around in national guard over the institution of attack. this of course is not. he and his mediocracy and hypocrisy.

>> he's chosen as a great leader of strength. >> i must say i was struck by the expanse they may have to put out their staffs and gore and clinton would do the change ticket and i suppose they could prove they could do a cameo appearances or something. they got more positive coverage than the vetos got more on their coverage. it was embarrassing. sorry i didn't get a chance to do it until now. >> the day before his speech he crossed to the boston harbor with his crew mates from vietnam, his band of brothers. they have one battle left. tonight he will stand alone in his hometown one more time and look to do what john kerry has always done, find a way to win. >> that is a lie.

you lie endlessly blaming -- it doesn't have a name on it, john o'neill. >> answer for your co author. >> i and is and why you're screaming. you can't afford the truth. >> [talking over each other] mix cbs news has exclusive information including documents that now sheds new light on the president's service record. 60 minutes has obtained government documents that indicate mr. bush may have received preferential treatment in the guard after not fulfilling his commitment.

>> both republican and you vote to enable george bush to keep rolling as a member on a retarded child emperor. [laughter] >> i have to tell you it's part of reporting this case in this election the feeling most people get when they hear barack obama is this feeling up my leg and i don't have that too often. seriously, he speaks about america in a way that has nothing to do it politics, about our country, and that is an objective assessment. >> i read that he once took a psychological profile test and it is the position as undertaker >> on the bus ride along the snow we rode to lebanon and hampshire i showed in this week's "newsweek" hot off the press. how does this feel of all of the

honors that have come your way, all of the publicity? >> i've not seen mess, so it's quite something. >> who does it make you think of? is there a loved one? i handed you a copy of newsweek and it's the first time you held it in your hands with you on the cover. have you yet held this in your hand? >> the fact of the matter is the comparison between her and hillary clinton is the comparison between and a blue and the empire state building. >> i want to just stipulate at the beginning of this interview we are declaring a referendum right free zone today, so no questions about reverend wright. our viewers want us to move on so this morning we are going to move on. is that okay with you? >> very well. sounds just fine. >> i don't know about you but i prefer james carville with a garbage can over his head.

look, when you watch those clips isn't it like you're in the christmas carol and it's the ghost of christmas past visiting you? a kind of blocked all of that out of my mind. but this year things really are not all that different. if anything it is a lot worse because there is a lot more at stake for the country. the futrell against conservatives has increased. the left leaders and the press are absolutely in a fathi frenzy. they want to frame at mitt romney as this guy that heats poor people, check. he hates puppies? checked. scott walker i know he's running around me tonight, but governor of wisconsin resists the recall but he really hated teachers and people like paul ryan, will he just wants to push a grand more over the cliff and watch. see her maybe if she is lucky little kibbles and bits. i mean, this is what they want people to think really

incredibly productive and intelligent conservatives, and it is so over-the-top that it's ludicrous. now, barack obama as you know is the opposite of all of those things. he loves puppies, people, rainbows, and he is a total romantic. he knows how to fly in and buying his wife. however for us it is usually on our tax dollars. but he can do no wrong even after this ridiculous record, this incredible damage that has been done to the united states. none of it matters because the infatuation has turned into a full-blown affair that the media has had with him. now, i know we are going to have audience participation at the end of the program but as far as i am concerned, you should feel

perfectly welcome to use your noisemakers to let the world know how you feel when we give our finalists the 2012 dishonors knuckle-draggers award. our first nominee of the night is former cnn correspondent bob franken and he's talking about gop candidates on this show called "politick nation," i submit it is on msnbc. i have personally never heard of the show but you can rest assured there are more people in this room than have ever watched this program but it was on january 6th. check it out. >> this seems to appeal to the right wing of the republican party. that is to say that there continues to be among many conservatives a real resentment against blacks and i think it is

part of the hateful campaign that is being methodically run in the hope is going to appeal to mothers who would love to see us return to the good old days of jim crow. >> yeah, we are really anti-black, justice thomas is anti-black, condoleezza rice is anti-black, all just hopelessly anti-black. msnbc daytime anchor, yes i want you to note this, he's an actual anchor on this network i used to work for called msnbc. his name is thomas roberts, and he was on last september 23rd to comment on the previous night's gop debate, and when i think that msnbc come i actually think of how many people work on each of their shows, and i think there are more staffers working

for the shows than there are people watching the show and nevertheless, mr. roberts takes it away. >> i get out of all of these things things candidates would rather build a time machine and go back in time where we had no women voting, slavery was cool. >> well, i -- >> in other words, republicans are troglodytes, liberals are so perpetually better informed. tom roberts. our third and final nominee for the 2012 dishonors knuckle-draggers award is, and well how could it not be -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah. i don't know about you but when

i'm watching chris matthews i feel like i have to reach for the baby wipes. i happen to have a child that is still in diapers so i have a lot are not the house but i want to both light of my television screen and myself. a lotf saliva happening. on november 15th, chris was a walking bumper sticker for the thinking of the left, and i'm thinking about their indication of their favorite four-letter word as applied to conservatives , hate. and if you ought to be really hit with the kids on twitter, its h-8-r, hater to be devotee where that badge proudly if that's what they call you on twitter. let's watch. >> the other confusion in the republican presidential

nominating process results from two discernable facts. one, they hate. that is the simplest explanation of the disastrous course of the process. they hate so much they are not in the mood to fall in love with a candidate or even fall behind someone. their brain is racked as they are like a trip, they lack the like. they go on looking for a politician they like. they're hitting it so much more satisfying. >> well, i don't know about all of you, but hating, we do i guess we hate what is being done to america. we hate what is being done to our freedom. we hate what is being done to our constitution. we hate what is being done to our gdp. we hate what is being done to our ally, israel. we hate to what is being done to america's standing in the world. we hate, yes we do. [applause] and i hate watching these clips from chris matthews. [laughter]

>> the vast right wing knuckle-draggers award goes to that so-called news anchor at msnbc who believes conservatives want to go back to the time when slavery was cool, thomas-no one has ever heard of me roberts. >> i get all of all of these things candidates would rather take the legislation to build a time machine and go back in time to where we had the know when and voting, slavery was cool, it's just kind of -- ♪ >> i don't know about all of you

but [inaudible] i think there's a lot of information we probably still could claim from those detainee said gitmo, and i'm thinking we just play nonstop loop of mathews and roberts back to back, maybe a little eleanor clift from and for good measure and we will get all of the house contact information that we need. accepting on behalf of our favorite msnbc host who could not be here tonight, and i am so sad tommy couldn't be here. perhaps no one in washington who the folks at msnbc despised more than a man who has devoted much of his professional life and much of his personal life to protecting and defending the american family. from both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative perspective, he has seen a close call frankly dangerous this can be coming and we all remember what happened earlier this year at the office of the family research council when the

offices and one of the security employees that's actually attacked, shot, and in individual was intent on sending a message, and he did. and got very little media coverage and i said to brent bozell a couple weeks ago imagine if a nominally republican oriented assailant had come heaven forbid, gone into the headquarters of the human rights campaign and shot one of their security -- i don't even want to think about it. but imagine if that had happened. there would be vigils, there would be protests, there would be nonstop media coverage. but because it happened to the family research council, it was essentially swept under the rug but i am delighted very much so to introduce the man who is accepting the award on behalf of tom roberts, my friends and the family research council, my

friend tony perkins. ♪ >> thank you, laura. i'm very honored to be here tonight. most people do not think i have a sense of humor and this is my chance to prove them right. i wouldn't think as asouthern baptist i would be encouraging people to drink. but go ahead and drink, the jokes get from here. [laughter] live from louisiana and i spent time in office and i have been speaking -- i was introduced as a former state legislator from louisianan and i finished speaking and a guy came up to me and said you don't sound like you are from louisiana. you don't look like you're from louisiana. i said what do you mean?

he said i watched that show about louisiana, swamp people. i said james carville does not represent all of us. [applause] well i thought that bob franken was going to accept for thomas roberts, but i was told that he could not make it tonight. he was out "wooking for the wight-wing wacist." maybe i can go back and pass on this invitation. and my pal, chris matthews, well, i hate to say this but i hate that chris matthews didn't win the award. and i hate that he is not here tonight. it must have been something he "hate." [laughter] or maybe it is just the thrill is gone. as for thomas roberts and the time machine, maybe we can send

him back to the time when reporters actually reported to the [applause] you know, you know the time. when dinosaurs roamed the year earth and news was so easy a cave man could do it and brent was running around in a loincloth. i'm sorry you just finished eating. next slide. let me just say on behalf of mr. roberts and the entire liberal establishment, mrc, you are a threat. for the rest of us, thank you, brent bozell. [applause] i gladly accept this award and i want to thank thank brent and mr inspiring all of us to look beyond what we are told and look for the truth.

brent come here is to 25 more years. [applause] ♪ >> i know that sound. i have worked with some of those people. [laughter] and everything you think about them is true. one of my favorites -- two things to go over. i was calling back there. one of my favorites was diane sawyer in forming as the occupied movement could spread to more than a thousand countries worldwide. i ran that over and over again. there are of course democrats who are listening at home, fewer than 200 countries on the planet earth. there for the movement has apparently spread to a number of other planets.

[laughter] brought so many valuable things, the occupied movement. the return of the fecal bomb. sexual assault tents. well, there are a lot of good people, individuals, a lot of organizations represented in this room, whose co-sponsored tonight's event. too many to individually. i would be going through a lot of you here. but you will find the names of the sponsors, many of your names, in tonight's program. but there is one person we want to single out for recognition to light because he has done something quite extraordinary. dan kennedy over here is a trustee of the media research center and heads the kennedy consulting where he is surrounded by a virtual army of

america's finest entrepreneur, all of whom will happily tell our beloved president, barack obama, the government didn't have a damn thing to do with building their businesses. [applause] come and dan did something tonight we want to recognize him for. he filled four tables with business leaders, so we wanted to single you out for recognition for all of your good work. [applause] and next up is the william f. buckley award for media excellence. the william f. buckley award for media excellence was launched, was founded with the blessings of william f. buckley himself in 2007. and the purpose is to honor once a year that individual who, as a

reporter, has done the most to correctly cover the policies and politics of the conservative movement, or as a commentator has best defended and promoted our vision in the face of relentless attacks from an increasingly dishonest left-wing media. that is a generous understatement. the winner every year is selected by the board of trustees, and our first recipient was none other than rush limbaugh. a lot of people have heard of him. he was followed in 2008 by the great athlete but missed tony snow. tony was followed in turn by a favorite of mine and certainly has been for a long time and the favorite of a lot of people and that is brent hume. [applause] one of the real adults in the

news media today. someone that really deserves great respect and doesn't get all of the respect that he is due in the industry. in 2010 we give the bulkeley award as the author of the statement and one of the unsung heroes of the conservative movement, ann stanton evans. [applause] last year the award went to another than cal thomas, and well deserved it was. cal with his column appearing in more than 500 newspapers nationwide, the most widely read conservative commtator in america. frequent guest on television shows and a regular panelist on the fox news watch, great show. cal has also won the cable ace award, the george foster peabody award as well as awards from the associated press and united press international ally am guessing those might have been a

while ago. so, to pass the baton and present the 2012 william f. buckley award for media excellence, it is an honor to present to you a man i am proud to call my friend, cal thomas. ♪ thank you very much, chris. those of you that don't live in washington and have the privilege of listening to press's talk show from 5 a.m. until noon just before rush limbaugh comes on i would highly recommend it to you. 6:30 waml. chris is one of the best talk show hosts in the country. on a par with rush he is amazing, he's funny, he's accurate, and if you haven't discovered him yet, i hope you will. he paid me